SquareTwo, an online journal hoping to foster informed discussion and development of LDS issues. The introductory essay by Richard Sherlock notes in particular that history and sociology have had their day in the sun as avenues of discussion; now it is time for theology and public policy issues to move to the center of the Mormon Studies conversation.
Here’s a paragraph that illustrates Sherlock’s call for a more rigorous discussion on these topics:
We need the lineup and the bench strength to think through Mormon theology with commitment and rigor, to propose answers to this important question, and to defend such answers against alternatives advanced by Mormon and non-Mormon thinkers alike. A thorough reflection on these fundamentals is needed to prepare us to tackle the pressing issues of today’s world. Only a few are now prepared to undertake these tasks. There are not nearly enough Mormons with both the religious commitment and the philosophical rigor to make a serious commitment to this endeavor. Those who serve in the Church education system rightly understand their work as preaching the Restored Gospel, not philosophizing. Many historians confuse history with serious theology, a very different intellectual discipline. Many lay writers confuse personal essays, pop psychology and doctrinal once-overs with theology. Many other writers expound “doctrine” without ever raising the foundational question of whether what they so confidently expound makes sense scripturally, philosophically or morally. [My emphasis.]
I’m guessing the bolded sentence is an aside directed at independent Mormon publications and journals that feature their fair share of personal essays, pop psychology, and doctrinal once-overs rather than at blogs. But a good chunk of those who contribute to independent Mormon journals are academics, not lay writers. And in a church without theologians or a professional clergy, aren’t we all lay writers?
This looks like an amibitious attempt to create some badly needed public discussion by Latter-day Saints with something to contribute to the debate. Making it a free online publication is a nice decision. I plan to comment on some of the other articles from the first issue in coming weeks.
posted December 27, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Many historians confuse history with serious theology, a very different intellectual discipline.
I’m curious which historians he has in mind, and how he came to conclude that “many” of them don’t know the difference between history and theology.
posted December 28, 2008 at 12:41 am
This should be interesting to see if this lasts. There are already journals that look primarily at theological and public policy issues, so it’s not like there’s a huge hole that needs to be filled. I do find Sherlock’s framework to be more than a bit distasteful. We haven’t reached “the end of history” and the philosophy of history is far more complex than Sherlock acknowledges. Sorry, but we’re not simply rearranging the furniture. Taking potshots at other scholars, especially ones that, ahem, currently comprise the majority of those working in academic Mormon studies, is not a good way to start.
posted December 28, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I wish them well, I think, although I’m not impressed by the first issue. I see nothing especially rigorous there, although there were some ideas that could be handled in a rigorous way — I liked, for instance, the idea of exploring the fear mongering used in what one author calls “LDS preparedness culture.” The article itself, though, is far from rigorous (the author “venture[s] to say that probably every culture in existence has had some story that resembles Aesop’s The Ant and the Grasshopper fable, but does not offer even a single example or fact in support of that assertion), and for a journal dedicated to theology it surprises me that the article discusses preparedness as solely the storage of commodities. (I’m not picking on this article — I liked its questions if not its investigation of those questions, and I could point to something similar in each of the four articles I read.)
I was bothered a bit by the conservative-talk-radio flavor of all the articles I read. They seemed not at all intellectual or academic, but read, rather, like extended letters to the editor, long on opinion and preaching-to-the-choir support of a shared political vision, but extremely short on evidence, support, or attempt to inform or persuade a reader who was not already an insider. Not only is the political viewpoint far to the right of center; its vision appears limited to American politics, showing no awareness that the Church has international concerns these days.
Frankly, I would not be at all surprised if the target audience of this journal is solely the narrow sector of Mormonism that sends its children to George Wythe University or to the LDS-flavored high school in Pleasant Grove. Like those schools, this first issue talks about rigor without exercising it.
Let’s not even get into the laughably naive claim that all the crucial elements of our history have been covered. This is the statement of a man who would close the patent office because everything worthwhile has already been invented. Let’s hope that what they have to say about their own fields, whatever those may be, have more substance than that!